-- 9x greater incidence of Hamangiosarcoma in neutered females, regardless of age of dog at the time of neuter.

- 4.3x higher incidence in Lymphoma in both neutered males and females, indpendent of age at the time of neuter.

- 6.5x higher incidence of all cancers combined in neutered femal3, 3.6x higher incidence of all cancers in neutered males. Typically, the younger the age at which the dog was altered, the young the age at which the dog was diagnosed with cancer.

Also, the study notes that dogs altered before the age of 6 months had a higher-likelihood of developing a variety of behavioral issues including: separation anxiety, fear of noises, timidity and fear biting. Altering after 6 months did not appear to create increased risk.

This study adds to the growing list of research on the negative health impacts of spay/neuter in large-breed dogs. The studies have specifically found similar results plus increased incidence of hip dysplasia and Cranial Cruciate Ligament Tears in Golden Retrievers, and osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in Rottweilers. It also follows similar issues found in previous behavioral studies on the impacts of spay/neuter.

The results have been very consistent, and show that not only is spay/neuter more likely to cause negative health impacts long-term, but that juvenile spay/neuter (before 6 months) heightens the risk.

When Science gets in the way

For several decades, rescues and shelters have been reliant on spay/neuter to decrease the number of unwanted pets as a way of controlling animal populations, and thus the number of animals that end up in animals shelters. By decreasing total populations, the goal is to minimize the number of animals killed in shelters.

However, if we are to really consider ourselves "animal welfare" professionals, we need to understand what science is telling us and to consider the trade-offs of the short-term and long-term impacts on our decisions on the pets we are responsible for.

Unfortuantely, in this case, it appears that the long-term health impact of spay neuter, particularly juvenile spay/neuter, is at odds with the short term goal of slowing pet population growth and minimizing the number of animals killed in our shelters every year.

The two are seemingly at odds with each other. Certainly I've read the arguments that in spite of the potential health impacts of spay/neuter, the greater good of decreasing the number of pets killed at very young ages in shelters outweighs the pet-longevity issues that may exist by spaying/neutering early. I can certainly see this point, and in many cases completely agree.

However, just because that is the case today, doesn't mean that we have to accept the status quo as the only solution and not be actively seeking out more viable alternatives. It seems clear that there is room for some middle ground here -- and I think it's up to the animal welfare community to acknowledge the issues and actively seek out that middle ground.

There are a lot of different stakeholders to this -- and I think everyone has a role in trying to do what is best for the animals that are in our care. First and foremost, it means acknowledging that the science exists. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand - that's how you get to let other people address the issue for you. And it's more than just the science that shows correlations -- but it makes biological sense that removal of growth hormone-producing gonads (especially at a very young age) would lead to long term growth and development issues. This completely passes the sniff tests, and we should take it seriously.

Where do we go from here?

It's a complex problem to be sure, and there are a lot of people with a vested interest in coming to the table with their part of the solution.

-- For the breeding community, I've seen a fair amount of talk about calling for the end of spay/neuter. Obviously this is self-serving to their needs. This community MUST acknowledge the sheltering realities that exist and that some form of population control is currently necessary in order to help maintain the drops in shelter euthanasia that have taken place over the last 2 decades.

-- For the lawmaking community, stop making laws mandating spay/neuter. It was never a good idea, but especially in light of the current research, there are many good experts in the field that are in disagreement with what the right solutions are. Please leave spay/neuter to the veterinary community so they may make judgment calls based on the best science available. Mandating spay/neuter does not do that. I've seen many a law that is requiring sterilization at very young ages and it seems evident that this is not in the best interests of the pets we claim to be protecting.

-- For the science community, we now have 3 studies that examine the impacts on dogs. All three have been on large-breed dogs. We need more research to also include small dogs, and cats, to determine if the risks are as severe with those as well. The more we understand about the scale and scope of the problem the better.

-- For the veterinary community, let's begin teaching other methods of sterilization. Zeuterin certainly seems to have its proponents and is one solution. But an even simpler one may be to begin performing vasectomies and tubal ligations instead of neuters & spays so that growth hormones can remain in place. However, most vets do not currently perform these proceedures. That needs to change and quickly.

-- For the shelter/rescue community, maybe we need to start waiting to alter puppies until they are older? Do we really need to alter 2 month old puppies? Would we be better off waiting until they were at least 6 months of age? The same purpose would be served, but for every month you wait, the less of an increase in many of the health risks you have -- especially for large breed and giant puppies. It certainly seems like there is a happy medium here.

This is a gnarly and complex issue -- and definitely a lot that is still unknown. But if all parties are willing to come together to acknowledge the risks, on all sides, I think a viable solution is out there. But it must first start with acknowledgment and open communication.

July 14, 2013

I've obviously been light on posting the past couple of weeks. It's been really busy in my personal, and professional life and just haven't had time to get to the blog. I'll have a bit more on some of those things in the coming week or so. Meanwhile, I've been stockpiling blog posts, some that just won't ever get written, but some I plan to get out there shortly.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of articles that I"m reading that I want to share in this week's roundup that I think you'll find interesting. Again, going to skip over the majority of bite stories (although there are a couple I want to share) and BSL fights (again, with exceptions). With that, sit back, relax, and enjoy some of the articles from the past couple of weeks.

Cities/States and Laws

Laws targeting specific breeds of dogs "not an option" for Great Bend, KS.

Mason City, IA approved a new dangerous dog ordinance that targets dogs based on behavior, not breed. The ordinance "promotes responsibility of the owner, supervision of the dog and safety to the public -- it does exactly what it was supposed to do" said Chairman Jay Urdahl.

Benton, AR passed a new dangerous dog law at a vote of 7-0. The law targets dangerous dogs based on behavior, not breed.

A Westwego, LA city councilman pulled his breed-specific law off the table after realizing there was no support for the law among his fellow city council members. The law was introduced as a form of panic policy-making after an attack in the community, but wiser heads have prevailed.

Speaking of panic policy-making, Garland County, AR passed a law targeting specific breeds of dogs which they refer to as "gripper breeds" including Am. Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Dogo Argentines (they're wording not mine), Persa Canarios (again, their wording, not mine), Can Corsos (yip, them again) and any mixes of those breeds. The law applies only to rural Garland County, but doesn't apply to first class cities in the county. Not to say that the law is a form of panic policy-making, but the passing of the ordinance comes after a fatal dog attack in the area 2 months ago -- in which a Bull Mastiff (not mentioned in the ordinance) attacked a young boy and less than 8 months after a committee was formed to discuss breed-specific language and determined it would not be effective. Anyone who thinks that passing breed bans is a rational conclusion reached to solve a problem needs to look no further than Garland, AR for how these small communities really pass these laws.

Collins, MS passed a ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers. The law was passed with no grandfather clause, so anyone who owns a pet of these breeds will have to lose their family pets. Collins, MS, a small community of about 2500 people.

Pasadena, CA passed a law requiring pets to be spayed or neutered by four months of age. I'm just amazed at the number of animal advocates that continue to support these types of laws in spite of their lack of success in controlling shelter populations, in spite of the reality that nearly no animal welfare organization supports them any more, and in spite of the potential health impacts that such early spay/neuter can create. Keep reading for more...

A rural North Dakota man was tragically mauled by a pack of up to a dozen wild dogs that were roaming at large. While there were a dozen dogs believed to be involved, the media decided to single out "a rottweiler, a pit bull and several other dogs" -- as if those dogs didn't matter. In all likelihood, if they were wild dogs, they were all mongrels of unknown breed.

In Baltimore, a 7 year old boy was attacked by a 'pit bull". According to witnesses, the boy was one of several kids that was playing on the block and "teasing" the dog, causing the dog to jump the fence and come after them.

In Palmer, AK, a Husky is going to be allowed to live after it attacked a 2 year old girl back in May. The young girl was in the kennel yard with 52 huskies -- all of which were working dogs -- and this dog broke free from its chain and attacked the young girl. Authorities claimed the girl's mother, who was with her, took a "totall unnecessary assumption of risk" by bringing three children under the age of 5 to the center of a busy dog yard.

A Des Moines area man was severely attacked by two dogs in his home. The two "Chow-Chows" were copulating and the man tried to break them up. When he tried to interupt them, they both turned on him and began to attack.

I'm including these attacks because I think they show several things: #1, the variety of dogs that can be involved in significant attacks, #2, that the circumstances around the attack are what lead up to them and that most are preventable, but human error and misunderstanding of dog behavior helped spur the attacks and #3 breed specific legislation does NOT protect people from attacks.

When "helping" is not "helping".

Sometimes rescue groups aren't what they appear to be. Raised with Wolves shares the story about a "rescue" that is simply a buyer of puppies from puppy mills and then redistributing them via "adoption". This is not the norm, of course. Most rescues are great, helpful people. But I share the recommendation to always do your research before you donate, or adopt, so you know you're getting what you're intending to get.

Los Angeles, CA under the No Kill LA Coalition is also seeing success. For several years, the number of animals killed in LA shelters was around 19,500 - 22,000. In 2012-13, the number appears to be closer to 17,500, so roughly 4,000 fewer than in previous years. (It's worth noting that in 1971, the shelters killed 111,000 dogs and cats. By 2003, that number was decreased to 30,000 -- and has now nearly halved again). LA still has a ways to go, but they are making progress pretty quickly and I wish them luck...

Kennel Cough: Natural Prevention of the Canine Cold -- Dogs Naturally has a potential solution to kennel cough -- something that is a neussance for sure in almost every shelter environment. Has anyone tried this as a way to stop kennel cough in their shelter?

The dog bit me -- a New York Times Magazine writer talks about the day her dog bit her child and many of the circumstances that led up to the bite. It's interesting how important the circumstances become when you take "breed" (which is never mentioned in the article) out of the equation.

I was bitten by a dog as a kid and nobody freaked out -- I love this article because I think it represents a similar situation to when I was bitten as a child. No one freaked out. No one blamed the dog. Nobody blamed me. When rational judgment replaced hysteria....

February 15, 2013

Earlier this week, a new study from the folks at California-Davis was released discussing the potential health impact of spay/neuter -- and early spay/neuter. Cal-Davis has a long reputation as being a leader in veterinary medicine so the results of the study I think deserve to be taken seriously -- although with the caveat that I do believe there is a lot more research to be done in this arena.

The study looked exlusively at Golden Retrievers and separated the dogs into three groups:

1) Unaltered Golden Retrievers

2) Late-neutered Golden Retrievers (neutered after the age of 12 months)

Based on their study, the neutered dogs had significantly greater risk of several conditions than their unaltered counterparts.

- Neutered males were at significantly greater risk of developing Hip Dysplasia (HD) Early neutered males were at more than double the risk as late neutered males. Early spayed females were at greater risk, but there was no difference in femails between late spayed females and intact females.

- While there were no occurrances of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Tears (CCL) in unaltered animals, or late-spayed females, there was significant occurrance in early altered males and females. The suty points to the role of gonadal hormones in controlling the closure of bone growth plates and that an atypical growth plate closure (resulting from the absence of gonadal hormones, may increase the chance of a clinically apparent joint disorder such as CCL or HD.

- Early-neutered males and females were more likely to develop Lymphosarcoma (the 3rd most popular form of cancer in dogs) than those that were neutered late or left unaltered.

- While cases of Hermangiosarcoma were rare in unalterd dogs and early-neutered dogs, there was a significant occurrance of the cancer in late-spayed females. Previous studies have also linked the spay of female dogs to Hermangiosacrcoma.

- Mast cell tumors were not present in unaltered females, but were significantly more common in late spayed females and present in early spayed females.

The study concludes that while the role of gonadal hormones in joint growth seems to have a causal role in Cranial Cruciate Ligament Tears and Hip Dysplasia, it is more complicated in certain cancers. The study is also quick to point out that impact may be very different in other breeds of dogs that have different growth patterns or health issues.

This study joins a growing list of studies about the impact of spay/neuter on the health of dogs, with previous studies also showing strong evidence for the neutering of males to increased occurrance of prostate cancer, and another study linking the early neutering of Rottweilers to increase the likelihood of osteosarcoma (bone cancer). Again, this one was linked to the importance of hormones in bone growth in large-breed dogs.

The impact of the research being done in this area may have a significant impact on the animal welfare community. Spay/neuter has become a very common practice in the US, and a primary form of animal population control for companion animals. However, if we really are into animal welfare, then the overall health of animals needs to be a consideration. Additionally, if we are to remain credible as organizations working to help people's animals, we have to be aware, and honest, about health impacts of spay/neuter. We also need to be exploring other alternatives to spay/neuter such as vasectomies and tubal ligations that may have the same positive impact on population control, without removing the important growth hormones.

This also further highlights that pushes for government mandates of spay/neuter are ill-advised as they may over-ride the information coming from the veterinary community about what is best for canine health.

The amount of research being done in this area is growing. And while there appear to be solutions that all parties can benefit from, we need to be aware of the research so that we are knowledgable, aware of what I think will be the growing change in how we view spay/neuter in this country, and prepared to change our current practices based on the most current information available. Remaining ignorant on this topic, or hiding our heads in the sand will not change it or make it go away.

September 21, 2011

Over the years, I've heard a lot of people/organizations that have claimed that people should alter their pets for a whole host of reasons. Generally, among the reasons listed is that it will make your pet less aggressive (this information is also sometimes used to justify laws mandating the spay/neuter of certain breeds/types of dogs).

While certainly there are a lot of good reasons to spay/neuter your pet (ease of population control being an important one), are the statements about improved behavior one of those?

Fortunately, there has been some research done on this topic. This research is not terribly new (the study was performed in 2006) but it has been sitting in my inbox to discuss for awhile and I've just never made the time to discuss it.

In the effects of spay/neuter study, they interviewed more than 1500 dog owners (all breed club members with dogs of known heritage) with dogs over the age of 1 year old. They had a 50/50 male/female ratio and 40% of the dogs were either spayed or neutered. In the interviews, the asked the dog owners to fill out the C-BARQ scorecard on a variety of different behavioral problems including:

- Stranger directed aggression

- Owner-directed aggression

- Dog-directed fear/aggression

- Dog Rivarlry

- Stranger-directed fear

- Nonsocial fear

- Separation-related behavior

- Attachment/attention-seeking

- Trainability

- Chasing

- Excitability

- Touch snesitivity

- Energy

Dogs from 11 different breeds were included - ranging in size from Yorkies to Rottweilers to measure differences among breeds.

The #1 reason people said they altered their pets was because of birth control (42%). But interestingly, 31% said to prevent health problems and 18% noted to control/prevent behavior problems. So behavior modification is a major driver why people alter their pets.

The results of the research may surprise you.

Spayed females were more aggressive toward both strangers and owners than intact females.

Spayed females were more fearful and sensitive to touch than their intact counterparts.

Neutered males were much less likely to mark their territories.

Both males and females that were altered were more likely to beg for food and to engage in excessive licking of people or objects.

The incidence of dog-directed fear/aggression varied quite a bit by breed. Some breeds: Bassett Hounds, English Springer Spaniels, Dachsunds, Labrador Retrivers and Yorkshire Terriers showed more aggression after being altered, where Golden Retrievers, Poodles, Shetland Sheepdogs, Rottweilers, Siberian Huskies and West Highland Terriers were either just as likely, or less likely to have shown aggression toward other dogs when altered.

In a second study, the researchers used a convenience sample of more than 3500 dog owners (76% of which were spayed or neutered) and measured the same criteria.

In this study, dogs of both genders were more likely to show dog-directed aggression/fear or owner-directed aggression when altered.

Dogs of both genders were also more likely to have touch sensitivity and non-social fear when altered.

Altered dogs were also likely to be less energetic.

Interestingly, for one breed-specific group in this survey, Doberman Pinchers, altered females were much more likely to show stranger-directed aggression, but altered males were much less likely to show stranger-directed aggression.

It should be specifically noted, that in all cases, the vast majority of all dogs studied showed no forms of aggression at all, regardless of their intact status -- and that differences in the scores don't mean that either situation results in severe behavioral problems.

In conclusion, the researchers report that for most behaviors, spaying/neutering was associated with worse behavior, contrary to popular wisdom, although a few behaviors (energy level, urine marking) were reduced with spay/neuter.

The effects of spaying/neutering were often specific to certain breeds, and not always equivalent between sexes.

I'm posting this information for a lot of reasons. I think there is a lot of "conventional wisdom'" that exists in animal welfare circles that has shown to not actually be grownded in actual data and I agree with the researcher's conclusions that if pet owners have a more accurate expectation of possible impacts of spay/neuter surgery they will be better equipped to prevent negative behaviors.

I also think it's interesting to read this in a world where many people want to link intact status to aggression and a reason for major dog bites. This may be true in at least some cases in male dogs, but definitely not for female dogs.

I also like their conclusion that similar research should be done with other proceedures similar to spay/neuter (like tubal ligation and vasectomies) to see if those can create the desired results (ease of population control) without the possible negative impact of lost hormones.

Does this change the way we promote spaying/neutering as a form of population control? Should it? Does it change whether or not cities should try to make laws mandating spay/neuter for public safety (certainly, there is no support for this in this research, in addition to the reality that it doesn't work to control population)? Certainly population management is essential to rescue success....but are there better solutions?

Addendum: I should have also noted on this study (and it was wisely pointed out below) that the study is not neccesarily a causal study because all of the other factors were not isolated. So the study does just measure a correlation between spay/neuter and behavior types -- that is not necessarily causal. There is also the issue of whatever variable that comes with owners defining the behaviors vs scientifically defining the behaviors. That said, I do think the study is interesting at the very least...

September 12, 2011

Several months ago, I got the opportunity to attend a presentation by author Ted Kerasote -- who is the author of New York Times Best Seller Merle's Door. During Kerasote's presentation, he talked quite a bit about his upcoming new book "Why dogs die young" that is due out in Fall of 2012.

Not only did I find what Kerasote had to say about the research he found for his book interesting, I also think it has the potential to have a dramatic effect on the animal sheltering community.

Last week, Kerasote did an interview with Dr. Karen Becker describing many of the topics that are in the book: Links will be below. While I obviously haven't read the book (since it's not available yet), there are several key topics that came out during the interview, and in the presentation that I attended that I think could dramatically impact animal welfare in the US for years to come.

Kerasote began writing the book after he toured around the country talking about his book Merle's Door. In his conversations with many pet owners, he heard a lot of stories about people who's pets died at a young age and everyone was saddened that they couldn't get just a little more time with their beloved pet.

So Kerasote began researching why dogs in other countries lived longer than ones in the United States, and some of his findings will challenge a lot of long-held notions we have in this country. Here are a few of the factors he discusses in the book (and the interview):

Spay/Neuter

One of the primary findings in Kerasote's research is that terilization has a significant impact on both the endocrine and immune systems in dogs. There is also mounting evidence that sterilization leads to early death, increased incidence of ACL injuries, certain types of cancers and a wealth of other types of issues.

Certainly this passes the "sniff test" of logic, as it only makes sense that removing major hormone-producing organs, especially at an early age, can have a significant impact on overall health -- and Kerasote does a good job of laying out this information.

Obviously, any kick-back against spay/neuter could have a dramatic impact on dog population over time. Kerasote is not oblivious to this and the problems facing shelters right now. He does provide a viable alternative in the form of recommending tubal ligations and vasectomies instead of the more intrusive spay/neuter as a form of birth control. Unfortunately, in talking to all 26 veterinary teaching colleges in the US, not a single one of them teaches these surgeries. When he asked them if they were open to changing, he asked back "are you invested in having fewer unwanted puppies? Or are you invested in spaying and neutering?

There are still problems with the tubal ligations for some shelters and pet owners (not all are equipped to deal with a dog in heat), but I certainly think that as more research is done about the health impacts of spay/neuter (particularly juvenile spay/neuter), it is well worth exploring viable alternatives.

Breeding

Karesote also discusses how American ideals on spay/neuter have led people down the road of linking unaltered dogs to poor education about dog ownership. The net result is that most people do alter their pets. However, he reasons that because most people alter their pets, dogs have to come from somewhere (ie, dogs somewhere have to breed), and that we've essentially narrowed the canine gene pool in this country to include a lot of health problems that decrease longevity in dogs. Karesote notes that if dogs have to breed to have more dogs, it is important to discuss how do we do this in the best way possible? The answer isn't necessarily insisting on altering every genetically healthy dog.

Vaccinations

In Karesote's presention in Kansas City, he noted the HUGE number of vaccinations his dog Merle received during his lifetime. He notes that there is a health impact of over-vaccinating dogs and that we should make steps to only do those that are absolutely necessary. I'm still amazed at the number of cities that mandate by law that dogs get over-vaccinated (there are a few cities in our metro area that still require an annual rabies vaccine even though 3 year vaccines have been around for years and many veterinarians think that vaccine may last up to 5-7 years). Boarding facilities are also very bad about requiring over-vaccination.

Nutrition

Based on his research, Kerasote has strong recommendations about diet and isn't a fan of most processed foods (most of which are way too high in carbohydrates vs the high-protein diet dogs do better on). There has been a movement recently to higher-quality packaged foods, and also a movement that more people are cooking at home for their dogs, and I expect this trend to continue.

No Kill

Interestingly, in a second part of the interview with Dr. Becker, Kerasote does seem to talk a bit about the No Kill Movement. He doesn't really call it by name in the interview (which I think is interesting), but notes that the notion that we should quit killing dogs in shelters is a growing zeitgeist -- and while some communities are doing better at this than others, the overall feeling that we should stop killing shelter animals is there. Dr. Becker also notes that the successful communities have been replicated in other areas....so it is not a flash in the pan.

Kerasote notes that the problem doesn't seem to be that there aren't enough adopters, but that shelters have not been successful in matching up the right dogs with the right owners. This isn't something he talked about when he was in Kansas City, so I am interested in reading more about this in the book.

Conclusion

I'm excited for this book to come out. I think Kerasote will provide an interesting perspective on many of the topics that are not terribly honestly discussed in the animal welfare community. While these topics are not new, particularly on the spay/neuter and breeding topics, the conversation has really only existed in small pockets in the breeding and veterinary communities and have oft been dismissed by the animal welfare community because they felt a) the sources were biased and b) they think talking about them hurts their mission in trying to prevent shelter killing.

I also think some of the findings wil have an impact on city governments, who too often have mandated things like vaccinations and spay/neuter that have a negative impact on canine health.

Kerasote seems to be an unbiased party in this -- and seems to only care about the well-being fo dogs. Whether you agree with his positions on these topics is somewhat irrelevant. He is a NY Times Bestselling author, and him bringing these ideas to the forefront will make them part of the conversation and change people's mindsets.

It will force us to have the conversation about what is truth, and what are alternatives.

This doesn't have to hurt the rescue mission (and I'm excited by the prospects of him discussing the no kill movement in some form in the book). It just may change the way we handle thinks like sterilization, and breeding, moving forward.

"Moreover, even while No Kill Advocates encourage spay/neuter, even while humane groups promote it, even while high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter is a central tenet of the No Kill Equation, this effort is a means to an end. It is not the goal itself. The goal is not “no more animals being born.” The goal is, and has always been, “no more animals being killed” (or, in the case of puppy mills, abused). Killing animals to prevent killing is not only a logical absurdity, it is patently unethical."

Much of the emphasis is mine, but I think these are some important distinctions that have somehow, sadly, gotten lost in the push to promote spay/neuter. Winograd doesn't allow comments on his blog, but does on Facebook, so you can join the conversation there.

Then, head over to Pet Docs on Call, where Tom discusses the difference a name makes, comparing "pet owners" to "pet guardians" to "pet parents". According to Tom, the research (although a very small sample size) suggests there is little evidence that changing the name leads to better care for the animals (even though that was the intent of those who are leading the movement for the name change).

I think most agree that seeing dogs as "property" makes them seem more like a couch, than a living thing and for that reason, guardian "feels" better. But the flip side is that legally, the US Constitution provides a lot of protection for 'property' -- and there are many out there (myself included) that have seen far too many dogs and cats confiscated from homes (and destroyed) because they have a certain "look" that is banned or because people are over city pet limits. And protecting these pets and pet owners with due process laws (which applies to property) makes pets falling into that category an appealing idea.

Some good conversations -- and good thoughts out there. So join the conversations and share your thoughts. And as always, be civil.

July 13, 2009

Kansas City is very lucky to have a couple of great low-cost spay/neuter facilities that target low-income areas of the city.

Like many cities, Kansas City has an over-abundance of bully-breeds entering our shelters -- which is even more problematic here because about 35% of our metro population cannot adopt the bullies because they are illegal in those communities.

One of our spay/neuter facilities is a stand-alone spay/neuter facility. It's not a rescue, shelter or affiliated with any adoption facility. All they do is spay/neuter.

So what types of programs can we implement to encourage people of hard-to-adopt breeds to alter their dogs? And what is the best way to get the word out to these owners of our promotion?

Money and resources are of course options here....but I know other communities have been successful with this, so I'm just trying to get a handle for the ideas that people have had that have been most successful in helping get dogs altered.

June 01, 2009

Last week, Spay/Neuter Kansas City had an open house for their new facility at the corner of 59th and Troost in Kansas City.

For those of you not family, SNKC is largest (I believe) of several low cost spay/neuter programs in the Kansas City area, and serves mostly the lower-income areas of Kansas City, MO.

Last year, SNKC altered 5,600 dogs and cats. This year, with the help of the new facility, their goal is to alter 8,000. They are currently altering about 35 animals a day on normal days with their 2 on-staff veterinarians, and about 100 once a month at their large MASH clinics.

Two of the main reasons people say they do not alter their pets are because 1) they really don't understand benefits to altering and 2) they cannot afford the proceedure. SNKC provides a huge resource for both of these - by not only providing the low cost spay/neuter proceedures, but also providing an outreach program where they go into the city's urban core and talk to owners about better ways to take care of their dogs, proving food, proper collars, straw and dog houses for warmth in the winter, and information on their low cost services.

About a year ago, they found out that they were going to be kicked out of their former building at 35th and Main because the landlord there was going to convert the building into condos. With the help of the city, they were able to find a new location -- a former auto-repair building that was owned by the city that has been retrofitted nicely for their operation -- I think the pictures tell a good story.

On top of being a great new facility, I think the location is going to serve SNKC well. The location is now even closer to the community that they are serving, and is an equally high-visibility site right along Troost (which has the city's 2nd busiest bus line).

There was a lot of community support that made this possible -- from the city, to free-lance architect design work, to countless volunteers and donations from throughout the city. This remains another good example of what can be done when different groups of people unite to do the right thing in the city. The multiple low-cost spay/neuter options in the KC area are a big part of the overall picture in making Kansas City more humane for the dogs and cats in our community. There is more work to be done, but there is a lot of good progress being made.

March 19, 2009

In a press release yesterday, the author of Los Angeles' mandatory spay/neuter ordinance called for LAAS Director Ed Boks to no end the city's spay/neuter voucher program. Ending the low-cost program would create a huge prolem for low-income families who would not be able to afford to comply with the city's mandatory spay/neuter laws. Here's the press release:

Cardenas Says Voucher Program is “Key in Creating a No-Kill City and Saving Money"

Today, the co-author of the city’s new mandatory spay/neuter ordinance issued a letter to General Manager Ed Boks urging the Los Angeles Animal Services Department to continue the Spay and Neuter Voucher Program. Councilman Tony Cardenas, said the department would be “taking a step backwards in our efforts to see Los Angeles become a no-kill city if the discount program is canceled.” The discount voucher program helps lower-income families afford to alter their pets and comply with the law. In addition, Cardenas points out that it would be more costly to the city in both the short and long-term if the program is discontinued.

“The cost savings of cutting the voucher program is shortsighted at best and will only result in immediate and long-term higher costs to the city,” said Cardenas. “A dog or cat that is not spayed or neutered now can have six offspring within a matter of two months. Furthermore, with spring and summer right around the corner, this city could see an alarming increase in strays in our shelters. This will intensify the strain on the department’s already strapped resources.”

It’s estimated that it costs over $100 to house and euthanize one animal. This figure does not include vet care, which could significantly increase that cost. With the discount voucher program, the city pays about $30 per altered animal with the pet owner taking care of the rest. Depending on the vet, spay/neuter procedures can average anywhere from $100 to $150. The city also offers “free vouchers” to residents who qualify whereby the city takes care of the full cost of the operation.

“Giving discounts to help lower-income families spay/neuter their pets and comply with the law is far more fiscally sound than over-burdening our shelters and employees with animals that have no homes,” continued Cardenas. “When the ordinance was drafted, my focus was on drastically reducing the over 15,000 dogs and cats euthanized per year. Without assistance, lower-income families will be unfairly burdened and will be put at risk for non-compliance with the law. In these tough economic times, individuals should not be forced to choose between feeding their families and complying with the law.”

Cardenas will be introducing a motion on Friday calling for the continuation of the voucher program and a report on the success of the spay/neuter ordinance. The letter and motion are attached.

All emphasis was added by me.

While it isn't a call for a repeal of the ordinance (which would be ideal), I'm certainly supportive of the city not pulling back on the availability of the vouchers. Meanwhile, I'll be intrigued by how the "report on the success of the spay/neuter ordinance" is done. The numbers don't make it appear as if it is working.

February 04, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, her dog was diagnosed with cancer and even though they tried to treat it, there came a time to do the humane thing and put the dog to sleep. Her dog was an 8 year old Rottweiler, that had been neutered at 5 months of age.

"Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact."

None of this should be a huge surprise to humans. As a society, we KNOW that hormones affect our development. We inject hormones into cattle so they grow larger faster. We inject dairy cattle with hormones so they produce more milk. Athletes even inject hormones in order to improve their overall performance in sports. And yet, many want to deny that the likelihood exists that removing a dog's gonads, which produce hormones used by the body for development, at a very young age may cause developmental problems that lead to major health problems later in life.

It really only makes sense.

Many organizations have followed HSUS's lead in promoting the benefits of spaying/neutering their pets (and there are many), but seem perfectly content to just never mention the potential drawbacks. And those exist as well.

In the conversations about "overpopulation" and "overcrowded" shelters, and the desperate attempt to end the killing in our shelters, we have (rightfully so) put a LOT of emphasis on spay/neuter.

However, spay/neuter is NOT the end goal. Spay/neuter is a tool that will help us not kill animals in shelters. Ending the killing is the end goal, not spay/neuter.

Somehow that has been forgotten.

Instead, many organizations that work so hard to get dogs and cats altered will risk animal's lives to ensure they are altered. I've heard too many stories about dogs with health issues being altered and having their lives put at risk. I had one dog that I brought to Kansas City from New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina that died having a spay surgery that was insisted upon by the head of the rescue even though she had a severe case of heartworms and a prolapsed uterus.

Even with Boomer, I feel like he was altered too soon. Because of the insistence of some of the folks in Oklahoma, he was altered in a mobile clinic, in adverse weather conditions with no comfortable area for recovery, while still very skinny. He was going to a completely new environment, already scared -- but now also in pain. The kicker here is that Boomer was going to a reputable rescue group (MABBR) that it would have been ILLEGAL for them to adopt him out without being altered. I would have much preferred him get healthy and back up to a good weight, before he underwent surgery.

One thing people in animal welfare I think sometimes forget, because they do hundreds and thousands of spay/neuter surgeries, is that it is an invasive surgery that is hard on the dogs. Just because it is "routine", does not make it non-invasive.

Now I don't want to give off the impression that I don't support spay/neuter. I do.

I HATE mandatory laws. Mandatory spay/neuter laws usually force all dogs (regardless of breed) to be altered by four or sometimes 2 months of age, regardless of the long-term health problems that this may cause in larger breeds. The laws also encourage animal control officials to confiscate dogs from owners if the dogs have not been altered -- causing the dogs to go into the shelter and often killed in the shelter. Again, spay/neuter is a tool, not the end goal.

I do still strongly support voluntary spay/neuter programs. Programs that target high-risk areas with low-cost/no-cost spay and neuter programs like those promoted byPeter Marsh and Nathan Winograd definitely work to reduce shelter populations and help create no-kill communities. However, it is our responsibility to be HONEST with people about spay/neuter. We should not only include the information about the positive attributes of spay/neuter -- but we should also discuss the potential drawbacks.

If we don't, the animal welfare community risks shooting itself in the foot in the quest for reaching the end-goal of a no-kill country. If people were to ever get the sense that animal welfare advocates (who, by definition, care about the welfare of animals) are not only performing surgeries on dogs that may not be good candidates for the surgery, but also MANDATING that a surgery be performed that would could lead to long-term health problems in dogs, would be devastating to the long-term goals of spay/neuter. If you think that getting people to comply with spay/neuter is difficult now, wait until people rebel AGAINST the idea because they find out the people they trusted because they cared about the welfare of animals were not honest with them.

The results of a backlash would be pretty devastating.

I'm not saying we should quit what we're doing (outside of the pushing of MSN), but we MUST be honest with people about not only the health benefits of spay/neuter, but also the potential drawbacks of the procedure...ESPECIALLY for juvenile large-breed dogs.

If we don't, the rebellion AGAINST spay/neuter will completely kill our hopes of reaching the end-goal -- saving animal lives.

For more on the positives and negative impacts of spay/neuter, read more here.